Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1881

Egbert v. Lippmann

104 U.S. 333 | 26 L. Ed. 755 | 1881 U.S. LEXIS 2008 | 14 Otto 333

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case holds that an inventor can forfeit patent rights by allowing even one person to make unrestricted, nonexperimental use of a completed invention for more than the statutory period, even when the invention is hidden from public view.

Background

Frances Lee Barnes, executrix of Samuel H. Barnes, sued Lippmann for infringing a reissued patent covering corset springs made of stacked metal plates connected so they could slide lengthwise while remaining aligned. The evidence established infringement of the reissue's second claim.

The dispositive dispute was validity. Barnes had made and given his future wife a pair of the patented corset steels in 1855 and another in 1858. She wore them for years, transferring them from worn-out corsets into new ones. Barnes imposed no secrecy obligation, use restriction, or experimental condition. He did not apply for a patent until 1866. The lower court dismissed the bill, concluding that the invention had been in public use with Barnes's consent for more than two years before his application. Barnes's executrix appealed.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether Barnes's gift of patented corset springs to one person for unrestricted personal use constituted a public use under the patent statutes.

Holding

Yes. An inventor's unrestricted gift or sale of a completed invention for its intended use is a public use, even if only one person uses it and the invention remains concealed from ordinary public view.

Reasoning

The governing statutes invalidated a patent when the invention had been in public use, with the inventor's consent or allowance, for more than two years before the patent application. The Court did not need to decide whether unauthorized public use would also trigger the bar, because Barnes expressly consented to his wife's use.

A public use does not require widespread distribution. One well-established instance of unrestricted use can be as effective as many instances. If an inventor sells or gives even a single patented article and permits its use without limitation for the statutory period, that use is public within the statute's meaning.

Public use likewise does not turn on how many people actually know about the invention. When an inventor transfers an article to another for unrestricted use, without a secrecy injunction or other condition, the resulting use is public even if knowledge of it is confined to the recipient.

The fact that corset springs were hidden inside clothing did not make their use private. Some inventions, such as mechanisms within watches or machines, are inherently concealed during ordinary operation. Yet an inventor who puts such an invention into an article and permits unrestricted use has still made a public use of it.

Issue #2

Whether the corset springs were used experimentally rather than publicly.

Holding

No. The evidence showed completed springs given for ordinary use, not good-faith testing or experimentation.

Reasoning

The Court recognized that even a use visible to the public may be non-public when undertaken in good faith solely to test the invention's qualities. But Barnes's conduct did not fit that exception. He gave the springs to his future wife for her ordinary use, and she wore them for years in the exact manner for which they were designed.

Nothing in the evidence suggested that Barnes gave the springs to test their performance, retained control over the use, or later altered the invention based on experimentation. The invention was complete in 1855, and the recipient was free to show the springs to others, reproduce them, or use or sell similar springs without violating any condition imposed by Barnes.

Issue #3

Whether the more-than-two-year public use invalidated the patent.

Holding

Yes. Barnes's unrestricted, consented-to use of the completed invention beginning in 1855 conclusively established abandonment under the statutory bar, making the later patent invalid.

Reasoning

Barnes waited until March 1866 to seek a patent, more than two years after the unrestricted uses that began in 1855 and 1858. Under the statute, public use or sale with the inventor's consent beyond the two-year period is conclusive evidence that the inventor abandoned the invention to the public.

The subsequent general adoption of the same principle in corset-steel manufacturing reinforced the conclusion that Barnes had not timely preserved an exclusive right. He could not, after allowing unrestricted use for years, use a patent application to reclaim from the public what his conduct had effectively dedicated to it.

Dissents

Justice Miller

Reasoning

Justice Miller read the statutory word “public” as a meaningful limitation. When other people use an invention without the applicant's consent, even nonpublic use may show that the applicant was not the first inventor. But when the inventor himself permits the use, the statute requires a public use or sale because the relevant question is whether his conduct manifested abandonment to the public.

In his view, use of a spring in a single woman's corset was private, not public. It was concealed by her clothing, observed by no one else, and did not teach the public how to copy or reproduce the invention. The majority's view improperly treated an unrestricted private permission as public use merely because the inventor did not impose an implausible instruction forbidding the wearer from publicly displaying an article that was already hidden.

Justice Miller also rejected the proposition that an invention incapable of visible public operation is necessarily publicly used whenever it is used at all. That approach, he reasoned, effectively writes “public” out of the statute and defeats a patent despite the absence of conduct that actually exposed the invention to public copying or demonstrated an abandonment to the public.